I was bored, thought I'd run some numbers - hadn't done any Chiefs-related homework in a while.

Anywho, discussion in another thread got me to thinking about the "talent level" on this team. People seem to be getting back in the habit of blaming specifically the QB and coaching, while claiming that this roster, and those before it are loaded with talent.

For a team that supposedly has talent, all they've done is beat up on the weak sisters of the poor over the last 4 years of the Pioli Nightmare.

23 wins in 4 years.

Those 23 wins came against teams with a collective 152-214 record and a .415 winning percentage. You can thank Green Bay dropping a metric ****ton of passes back in December of 2011 - take them out of the equation, and you're looking at a .375 winning percentage.

1 win in 4 years against a 10-win or better team.

3 wins in 4 years against a 9-win or better team.

20 wins against 8-8 teams or worse - 11 of those wins against teams with 6 wins or less.

So the "Executive of the Decade" was responsible for 5.75 wins per year, and we should consider ourselves lucky we "earned" that many.

In this era of parity in the NFL, a team with this much "talent" would be winning more than 5.75 games per year. Even without a QB. Even without a QB and HC.

Folks say that Mark Sanchez is a POS, and that we have more talent than the Jets. The same Jets that have won 34 games in the last 4 years. 11 more than the Chiefs.

Buffalo has shit for talent, plays in a brutal division, and has 2 fewer wins over the same time period.

Cleveland is hot garbage, and they've won 4 fewer games over the past 4 years. 1 game a year difference.

Jacksonville has 1 fewer win.

Miami has 4 MORE wins.

Oakland has 2 MORE wins.

The overwhelming majority of this board would claim that we have more "talent" than every one of the above teams.

The overwhelming majority of this board would claim that our QB play has been at least as good as the above teams, and in most cases, better.

The overwhelming majority of this board would claim that our coaching has been at least as good as the above teams, and in most cases, better.

The overwhelming majority of this board would be dead wrong on one of those three assessments. One of these things is not like the other.

Folks, it's time to wake up and realize that QB and HC are just part of the problem.

I see a lot of bad teams with bad QB's and bad HC's that have won as much or more than we have.

Sadly, the bottom line is that there isn't nearly as much "talent" on this roster that you think there is - and that we're a lot closer to the Cleveland's, Buffalo's and Jacksonville's of the NFL than you want to admit.

If he hadn't missed at QB this wouldn't be a 2-win team. If he hadn't retained Crennel this wouldn't be a 2-win team. The NFL is not about having a team full of stars. It's about building a team around a handful of stars. They have that handful. What they don't have is the central piece that each of the perennially best teams have. And on top of that they have a coach that's about as wrong for the team as humanly possible. They're a 2-win team because every fear that every one of us have ever had about Crennel as a HC and Cassel as a QB came to fruition in one brilliant cyclone of suck.

Yeah, I'd use a facepalm if I said something as stupid as you did too.

According to damn near everyone on this board, we have a ****ton more talent than Buffalo, yes? I mean, we play these guys damn near every year, and everyone talks about how shitty they are - that is, before they curbstomp us.

So riddle me this, genius...

How is it that a QB with a better supporting cast could only equal the same 5-6 wins he's getting with an inferior supporting cast in a tougher division?

Suppose the Chiefs signed Peyton Manning. He probably would have been benched in favor of Mr. Cassel until about game 8. This team is run by idiots.

Don't believe me? How long did it take them to figure out Lary was done and Jamaal was a rising star? Only most of the season. Even us stupid fans could
see it and were getting frustrated at them for it.

Yeah, I'd use a facepalm if I said something as stupid as you did too.

According to damn near everyone on this board, we have a ****ton more talent than Buffalo, yes? I mean, we play these guys damn near every year, and everyone talks about how shitty they are - that is, before they curbstomp us.

So riddle me this, genius...

How is it that a QB with a better supporting cast could only equal the same 5-6 wins he's getting with an inferior supporting cast in a tougher division?

You keep changing your argument.

Fact is, the Chiefs would be much better with solid QB play and better coaching. That has been my argument this entire time.

Yeah, I'd use a facepalm if I said something as stupid as you did too.

According to damn near everyone on this board, we have a ****ton more talent than Buffalo, yes? I mean, we play these guys damn near every year, and everyone talks about how shitty they are - that is, before they curbstomp us.

So riddle me this, genius...

How is it that a QB with a better supporting cast could only equal the same 5-6 wins he's getting with an inferior supporting cast in a tougher division?

Our team plays soft with no coaching or discipline. Romeo is worse than any coach the raiders have had in a while, something I knew before the season even started. As many coaches as the raiders have had, they haven't had a whole lot of pure disasters. The two seasons prior were on the qb and injuries exposing how bad our depth was, which is on pioli. The raiders have had injuries at rb, but that's easier to handle when your backup is Michael bush. Not as good when your backup is Jackie battle.